Kennedy V Nsw Minister For Planning

The hearing was commenced on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 at the Land and Environment Court 3A, Windeyer Chambers 225 Macquarie Street, Sydney. It was led by Commissioner Dixon.

It involved the High Court considering the application of Australian law to the rights of Indigenous Australians, in particular regarding the legal concepts of terra nullius and native title

“[t]he trial judge found that an aboriginal right could not be claimed unless it was supported by a special treaty and that s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 accordingly had no

The high court made a judgement (15) which was Mabo 1992, which attempted to assist the Indigenous people with the act of racial decimation dealt with the injustices that were served by the government. Attempts were made to help the government that was under the rule of Paul Keating, who tried to help with the injustices that both parties were dealing with the RDA. This acknowledged the idea that there were things like native title had been beyond the likeness that some places were either private or public and had ownership which included idea that terra nullius was then wiped out. The opposition at the time was John Hewson with support of John Howard. After the decision was made, Keating was then compelled to act in the face of the high court’s

With the change from Keatings progressive labour government to John Howard's’ conservative Coalition government, came resounding regression to the Native Title act, with the 10 point plan, and the coinciding Wik decision nine months after. The Wik VS Queensland case (1996) established that in cases of conflict between pastoral leases and native title, pastoral leases override and can successfully extinguish native title , which was adopted with the change of legislation and introduction of the Native Title amendment Act (1998). If there is no conflict, they can coexist. Many cases of Native Title extinguishment has occurred, and only approximately 600 areas hold Native Title in all of Australia, with less than 1% in NSW. As a procession from the Native Title declaration, this legislature has digressed justice to the ATSI community , and as further iterated by Sydney Morning Herald has “undone the good of the Mabo decision”. ATSI discrimination following the legislation of the Native title Act (1996) significantly rose in the public discourse with renowneded personalities claiming they could “take their backyards”, and an unspoken deeply-rooted fear for many, dating back to Australia’s colonization; that Australia could be declared completely under Native Title, and the sovereignty of the Crown could be questioned . For ATSI peoples’, the introduction of the 10 point plan, and the Native Title Ammendment Act (1998) marks a significant national regression upon achieving justice for their community as they sought to pour “"bucket-loads of extinguishment" on the native title rights of Indigenous Australians. Law reform, in this case has been dominantly ineffective in achieving justice for the ATSI peoples, and rather revoking

Arguably one of the most notable cases conducted in the Australian High Court, Mabo and others v Queensland (No2) (1992), or shortened to Mabo 2, holds prominent significance in Indigenous Australian history as being the first legal recognition of land rights for Indigenous Peoples under the common law system. Despite the court ruling in favour of Mabo, and additional legislation protecting First Peoples native title claims, little buffer presently exists to prevent land claims from being extinguished. The recent McGlade v Native Title Registrar (2017) decision stands to counter Indigenous Peoples’ rights, as well as amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 Cth to impeach on Indigenous communities’ livelihoods by the restriction of their entitlement

Richard court, the premier of Western Australia at the time was against the Native title act as he was afraid that because most of Western Australia has underdeveloped land that most of it will be recognised under native title and given to the indigenous Australians. Richard court’s government attempted to extinguish all native title in the state, this act was found to be inconsistent with racial discrimination act and thus it was abolished.

The appellant, Sparrow was caught fishing with a drift net longer than the acceptable length under the Fisheries Act. Sparrow is a member is of the Musqueam group and has certain rules to follow under this. The appellant has admitted to the act, but has claimed there is an existing aboriginal right to fish. This issue falls under Section 35(1) of the Constitution act of 1982, and Sparrow has claimed the Act is inconsistent as he is just exerting his rights as an aboriginal. The respondent in the Supreme Court has argued that section 35(1) only protects this aboriginal right in food-related cases. The case has been brought to the Supreme Court, as previous appeals have been unsuccessful.

The report that we have been studying and learning about is the magistrates court and how there system works so that people pay the price for what they have done. Meaning different consequences given for how bad the situation is.

Gough Whitlam gave land back to the Aboriginals and said “ We will legislate to give aboriginals land rights - not just because their case is beyond argument, but because all of us as Australians are diminished while the aborigines are denied their rightful place in this nation.”

Mabo and others v Queensland (No 2) (1992) refers to a legal decision was made by the High Court on

Ms Maricar Virata v NSW Motel Management Services Pty Ltd T/A Comfort Inn Country Plaza Halls Gap [2015] FWC 7932

The Administrative Appeals Tribunals (commonly abbreviated to the AAT), is an Australian tribunal which was established in 1976. The primary role of the AAT is to independently review administrative decisions made by Ministers, departments, agencies, and other tribunals based on their merits, and to either affirm, vary, or set aside those decisions. In order to determine whether or not the AAT is functioning efficiently and that it is serving its purpose, we must look at the way that the tribunal formulates it’s decisions through the use of ‘merits review’, the structure of the tribunal itself and its distinction from a courtroom, and finally whether or not the AAT has effective jurisdiction in an effort to uphold the right of an individual to independent administrative review, and also to keep governments accountable.

Managing Environmental Change, in this report the beach that will be researched is Semaphore beach on the coast of South Australia giving you an insight in the change at an Adelaide metropolitan beach and produce recommendations of how to best manage your chosen beach. This beach is a particularly popular beach for the people of Adelaide with its white sands, family-friendly shallows and colorful foreshore. Semaphore beach is deep and white and backed by low dunes rather than tall buildings. It is also known for its historic background with its regular tours, and it also known for the carnival rides and their waterslide and the yearly kite festival (Semaphore South Australia, 2015). The aspects that will be elaborated on is the history including

In Australia, environment and planning laws are integrally linked and legislation aims to balance the right to use and develop property with the need to preserve and protect environmental quality. An intergenerational report is presented every 5 years which shows the country’s plans for next 40 years to preserve the environment which includes different aspects like land, water, ecosystem etc. and use the resources in a way so that there are enough resources for future generations. In this report we will be discussing how the intergenerational repot of 2015 is going to help to sustain the environment.